I upgraded from a 10 year old Pentium 4 to a 3.3Ghz Ivy bridge and, at least for now, I'm still running XP. It works, but the integrated Intel HD4000 graphics feels slow compared to the 10 year old PC. Moving windows, console scrolling, etc. Worst of all, the mouse cursor feels slow.

Is this a known problem with the Intel graphics? Would Windows 7 or 8 run better?

Should work fine. More likely, something isn't set up properly... See any question marks when you dive into the device manager? Or, maybe a RAM stick failed and your are trying to run with only 1-2GB of RAM...

As for Win7 vs Win XP: I heartily recommend Win7. A lot of the boneheaded crap/issues just went away when I upgraded.

Or, maybe a RAM stick failed and your are trying to run with only 1-2GB of RAM...

Should make no difference. Windows XP will only use around 100Mb in itself. More than a few hundred Mb would not effect a typical desktop system before any applications are loaded. An inability to handle a non-composting window manager within the drivers is one possibility or maybe the drivers don't work properly on Windows XP. Have you tried benchmarking anything? Look up some graphics benchamrks for the 4000 series graphics and see how yours compares. It could be that hardware acceleration is entirely broken in your setup, even in 2D. Is this a new Windows install or not? A motherboard change is the kind of thing that can cause a Windows install to give up on life.

I guess I wasn't clear. I'm talking about 2D performance, not 3D games. Game tests are totally irrelevant. I haven't even tried running a 3D game. The benchmark I linked to is a 2D (normal Windows API) benchmark.

Ok, I think I figured out the problem, or at least part of it. I use a rotated screen (1080x1920). When in 'normal' orientation (1920x1080), the 2D performance is fine. It's only super slow when rotated.

More discoveries: the slow mouse cursor is a different problem, not caused by slow graphics. Changing USB ports from Intel Z77 to ASMedia USB3 controller makes the mouse work normally. Intel doesn't supply USB3 drivers for XP, so generic Microsoft USB2 drivers are being used for those ports...it should work, but maybe there is a subtle bug.

I haven't come across any specific problems regarding slow 2D in portrait mode for the HD 4000. My best suggestions are to see if your BIOS is current (there were flickering issues with the HD 4000 that were solved by updating the memory manager in bios) and the graphics driver is current. Also, pop into the Device Manager and see if the display adapter is correctly enabled.

From what I could tell from searching the Intel documentation (http://intellinuxgraphics.org/documentation.html), the Intel graphics hardware doesn't directly support rotation, except for 180 degree rotation. And indeed, 180 degree rotation runs at full speed.

So my guess is that there's an inefficient conversion step involved. This makes it actually slower than unaccelerated software rendering, which explains why it speeds up when acceleration is disabled.

On my ancient nvidia card, the performance is the same whether the screen is rotated or not!

I haven't (and probably never will) tried rotating my monitor, but according to all I can see in the "Intel Graphics and Media Control Panel" of my i3-3225 system, it supports 90, 180 and 270 degree screen rotations. You can change it on the fly using a drop-down box right on the application itself. This is on Win 7 64-bit though.

Luke, Vista is microsofts ugly child. They nearly deny it ever existed. Besides, i have some PCs running Vista and they do work stable. But using Win7 is a more pleasant experience. Most Win7 drivers do work on Vista and the other way around.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum